- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hey all,
PLEASE keep this private for now. I am in discussions with GSN (Goldenstar Network) and prefer not to derail that conversation.
The terms have changed at GSN after much discussion with Peter. The original terms:
Original Terms wrote:1. Negative Carryover2. Minimum Player Rule – Should an Affiliate not refer a minimum of 1 (one) New Real Purchasing Player for a consecutive 2 month period, the affiliates ‘Player Referral Commission’ will revert back to our base commission percentage of 25%. Should an Affiliate not refer a minimum of 1 (one) New Real Purchasing Player for a consecutive 4 month period, the affiliates ‘Player Referral Commission’ will be reduced to half of our base commission percentage, namely a percentage of 12.5%. The Affiliates account will not be terminated under these circumstances and the Affiliate will continue to be paid a commission, albeit at a lower rate, for the Life Time of such players.
New Terms:
New Terms wrote:1. Negative Carryover – Unlike with a player making a big win, which only lasts one month (No Negative Carryover), a charge back will stay due until the revenue generated by your other players has covered the amount due. We understand that this might be frustrating to the Affiliates, but it has to be made clear our Clients can only pay out a percentage of their profits, not fraudulent revenue.2. Should You not refer a minimum of 1 (one) New Real Purchasing Customer for a consecutive 3 month period, the Affiliates ‘Player Referral Commission’ will revert back to our base commission percentage of 25%. The Affiliates account will not be terminated under these circumstances and the Affiliate will continue to be paid a commission, albeit at a lower rate, for the Life Time of such players.
So – basically, negative carryover is gone under the new terms… AND they still have a minimum player rule, but it reverts commissions only to their ‘base rate’ instead of either taking their players OR lowering to 12.5% like they previously had.
I am not attaching a poll because I want a real discussion on the merits of their change or if it is still ‘Predatory’.
Thanks all!
Andy
Hmmm, it’s not perfect but I think it’s acceptable.
25% is their base rate and anything above that is a special reward for special performance, so if the performance isn’t special the normal % kicks in.
That’s reasonable.
acceptable.
bb1webs wrote:acceptable.Ditto bbs1webs
I disagree with all of you. :wow:
The new terms aren’t as predatory as the old terms, but they’re still predatory.
Imagine referring a whale that puts you in the 35% or 40% bracket each month. Shouldn’t you expect to be awarded 35% to 40% of his losses, regardless of the number of players you refer in a given period? (Answer: YES, you should expect that).
Under GSN’s new T&Cs, that won’t happen. Granted, 25% of something is better than 0%. But still — the revised T&Cs are predatory because they are designed to decrease the amount that you take home. God forbid you have a bad month in the SEs; God forbid you decide to promote someone else besides GSN….
The new T&Cs are an improvement over the old T&Cs, for sure, but they still aren’t as good as most other MGS affiliate programs.
Hi again all,
well to be honest …. i’ve never trusted (and you’ll never convince me I didn’t have good reason .. i’ve tested) this company anyway.
do I find the terms acceptable : yes. do I trust them …not a chance. just my opinion.
Thanks, everyone, for the information.
I am still debating this one, but my thoughts are that the term itself is not predatory. When the commissions were dropped to 12.5% – it WAS predatory for sure.
That is where I am leaning at the moment – any more thoughts?
in regards to my trust issue
[url]xxxhttp://gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=170144[/url]
BB1 please dont do direct links fom the private forums area. Put xxx in front of url.
I just saw that and will be bringing it up with Pierre immediately.
It is a bit of a long quote…. This is just the original post and not the whole thread..
Universal4 wrote:I have been doing a little link testing to see if I could get to the bottom of what is happening with your group and am not real happy with my initial findings.I start my testing with River Nile:
First, I tested a banner link (because you guys don’t want to supply us with trackable text links)….(I mean how hard is it to create a bannerID that will only be used as a text link)My first click went to a page that returned the error
Directory Listing DeniedThat came from banner ID=2772
Ok….so anyone using that one is losing out…I’ll get another.
Next link I check is bannerid=2755
It works and shows me the casino.Using a javascript check I see that the cookie that is set does NOT contain our affiliate ID….it does contain a session id, but the ideal situation would contain our affiliate id.
I will now move on to miami Paradise.
I test the link and am presented with the website.
I check the cookie and I see that I will not be credited with this click either….….because Techwoman will get the credit…
…Yes, I did in fact click on a few of her links because we have been doing some testing….
….HOWEVER…this testing was DAYS AGO!
What this means is the cookies are persistent….which I think is a good thing….BUT the cookies are NOT being overwritten….
There have been many discussions about this subject and there are a few different view points on this,….so I figured I would put it out there so everyone can make a decision based upon my findings….
I personally will base my decision on the results I have seen so far…
(InMyOpinion) If I send the click that makes the sale, I should get credit for it….no matter who sent the visitor yesterday….
Everyone else must make their own decisions in this matter….and please, if you want to start a discussion based solely on the attributes of the cookies and who gets credit etc etc…..start a thread in the General chatter and keep this discussion here related to the tracking of Golden Star only.
Rick
Universal4Disclaimer: Every single point I mention in this thread is my opinion only and not that of anyone else…..and none of it has been posted as a detriment to Golden Star, but with a healthy discussion maybe we can help them get to some stats that work.
This is something that should be tested by APCW for verification.
While this is only my experience, I have done very well with GSN ever since Marlo left and even now their performance is outstanding in terms of revenues being produced. As I reported previously earnings at a few other MGS groups I work with basically went off a cliff in February and March (CPS, Roxy and Casino Rewards) that DIDNT happen at GSN, so for me they have been one of my few bright spots these past two months.
I have never had any reason to believe there was a problem with tracking based on the level of exposure I give them and the subsequent monies generated. I havent tested it though so I think you guys should get J Todd to look into this.
They have sucked for me so bad for so long they never got any chance to prove themselves again.
I wouldn’t know if they are better since Marlo left.
Its like night and day.
When Marlo was there I always refered to them as Fallen Star Network. Then Manuel sold to Tyrone and Marlo got the heave ho. Suddenly the shaving stopped and I started earning good money with them. Marlo (or Manuel) was stealing money by the bushel prior to that.
You should give them a try now.
